Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 25, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000474

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Reza Mortazi and Maryam Naji

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit 3 infill dwellings

Reference Number: ZBLA-23-0008

Property Address: 1 Cynthia Crescent

Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000474

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000474

OLT Case Name: Mortazi et al. v Richmond Hill (City)

Heard: October 17, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Reza Mortazi and Maryam Naji	Paul DeMelo
City of Richmond Hill	Carlton Thorne

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON OCTOBER 17, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was scheduled as second Case Management Conference (“CMC”). On consent of the Parties, it was recently converted to a one-day Hearing related to a Settlement Proposal (“Settlement”).

2The Application was filed by Reza Mortazi and Maryam Naji (“Applicants” / “Appellants”) for the municipal address known as 1 Cynthia Crescent (“Subject Property”). The Appeal relates to a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) Application, under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) resulting from the refusal or neglect of the City of Richmond Hill (“City”) to make a decision on the Application, which seeks to establish the zoning for the total of three proposed infill dwelling units (“Proposal”).

3The history of the Application dates back to last year, having originally been received and referred back to City Planning staff at the statutory public meeting held in October 2023, followed by the Appeal of the ZBLA non-decision to the Tribunal in April 2024. The first CMC was held on July 4, 2024, and chaired by this Member.

PARTICIPANTS STATUS UPDATES

4At the first CMC, the only written request for Participant Status was submitted by Bart and Marina Melek, dated June 24, 2024, as the owners of property municipally known as 69 Coons Road. Their concerns regarding the Proposal include but are not limited to the following:

• It does not maintain consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (”PPS”), and does not conform to the City Official Plan (“COP”);
• It is not consistent in scale and lot patterning with the existing neighbourhood character and the surrounding area;
• The design represents a deviation from the existing City By-law No. 1275 (“ZBL”) because of its divergent mix of housing design and would erode the quality of the area’s streetscape; and,
• The lot separation distances are inadequate/not compatible with the neighbourhood, and wooded lots are jeopardized.

5Since the last CMC, three additional written Participant status requests were received by the Tribunal:

1. Ken and Alana Nadeau dated October 8, 2024. The concerns expressed included, but were not limited to:

• The Application does not conform to the COP;
• The proposed lots do not comply with minimum lot frontage, building height, and side yard setback requirements under By-law 1275;
• Concerns with adverse environmental impact;
• Negative precedent, for a stable residential area; and
• Adverse impact on the neighbourhood’s appearance and stability.

2. Mark and Belinda Pacitto dated October 10, 2024. The concerns expressed included, but were not limited to:

• Non-compliance with development standards;
• A lack of revised plans;
• Incompatibility/adverse impact on neighbourhood character; and
• Environmental impact.

3. A separate written Participant status request from Stephen Gooderham was received by email to the Tribunal, on October 17, 2024, who was experiencing some technical issues with the Tribunal form. His concerns primarily related to traffic speeds along Coons Road, and drainage/stormwater management as it effects property flooding.

6Neither of the Parties to the Settlement expressed any concerns/objections to these requests, and the Tribunal conferred Participant status on Ken and Alana Nadeau, Mark and Belinda Pacitto and to Stephen Gooderham at the Hearing.

7Issues relating to the Participant statements are addressed in detail below beginning at paragraph [33] by the Applicants.

EXHIBITS

8The Parties agreed to refer to the following Exhibits for the purposes of the Hearing:

1. Notice of Hearing for the first CMC was previously confirmed by Affidavit as signed by Christopher J. Drew on May 25, 2024; and,
2. A sworn Affidavit containing the Witness Statement, Curriculum Vitae, and Acknowledgement of Experts’ Duty, from Nick Pileggi, Principal at Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., dated, October 16, 2024.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA

9The Subject Property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of the east leg of Cynthia Crescent and Coons Road. It has a frontage of 56.95 metres (“m”) on Cynthia Crescent, a length of 62.30 m along Coons Road, and has a total lot area of 3877.15 square metres (“m^2”), with a single-detached dwelling fronting onto Cynthia Crescent, proposed for demolition, to facilitate the three new dwellings.

10The Subject Property is generally situated in a residential neighbourhood and is zoned Residential Urban (“RU”) Zone within the ZBL, as amended by By-law 146-76. The proposed Site Specific ZBLA would allow for changes to lot size and frontage, allowing for a future application for consent to sever, seeking two additional residential buildings lots fronting on Coons Road.

THE SETTLEMENT

11Following a series of discussions between the Parties surrounding the Proposal, in August 2024, the Applicants submitted revisions to the City to address outstanding issues, including but not limited to the:

• provision of minimum frontages of 19.8 m;
• protection of trees and the existing woodland on the Subject Lands as set out in the Natural Heritage Evaluation (“NHE”) (updated in 2024) (Exhibit 2, Tab 10);
• installation of tree protection fencing and sediment control measures around the perimeter, as directed by the Arborist Report, Tree Inventory and Landscape Plan, with the Open Space designation;
• removal of various Site Specific development standards related to reduced side yard setbacks and decreased building height; and,
• demonstration of appropriate stormwater management for the proposed lots, with drainage/grading considerations and retention of some existing trees.

12On September 25, 2024, City Council approved Planning Staff Report (“PSR”), (Exhibit 2, pg.60), recommendations in support of the Settlement. City Council also provided direction to its Counsel and Planning staff to appear before the Tribunal in support of the Settlement.

13In addition to the matters discussed above at paragraph 11, in order to protect the existing woodland located on the Subject Property, the Settlement allows for the rezoning of the southern portion of the Subject Property from RU Zone to Open Space Zone (“O Zone”) under the ZBL, as amended. The O Zone permits only parks and conservation areas among other limited uses thereby preventing residential development from occurring on this portion of the Subject Property providing permanent protection for the woodland which includes the existing mature trees and vegetation located on the Subject Lands.

14At this stage, the Applicants are seeking that the Tribunal allows the Appeal, and issues a Final Order, approving the ZBLA instrument, based on submissions from Counsel for both Parties. They each confirmed at the time of the Hearing that everything related to the proposed ZBLA instrument, as set out in Attachment 1, to this Decision, has achieved full and final satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Building Services in the City.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

15In deciding on the matters before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed development is representative of good planning in the public interest. The proposed planning instrument must be found to: have appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act; be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and more recently, consistency with the new Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“New PPS”); conformity to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”); conformity with the Region of York Official Plan (“RYOP”), the COP and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”).

PLANNING EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

16Mr. Pileggi appeared before the Tribunal and was duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning on behalf of the Applicants. Mr. Pileggi assumed carriage of the matter in April 2024. He noted that he did not appear at the statutory public meeting on this matter, originally in October 2023.

17Mr. Pileggi initially provided some history of the matter, followed by an overview of the Subject Property as it related to the surrounding area, which includes a variety of single-family dwellings with a mix of lot frontages and others with larger lot frontages. He also noted the existence of wooded areas adjacent to the Subject Property to the south, and along the westerly portion.

18As noted in paragraph [14] above, Mr. Pileggi reiterated from a land use planning perspective, that what is being requested of the Tribunal is a Final Order approving the ZBLA at this time, as agreed to by the Appellants and the City. He explained that following the Tribunal’s approval of the ZBLA, the Applicants intend to apply for the severance of the Subject Property, as required through the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) process. This is considered to be the next step, in order to create the three (3) residential dwelling lots, in accordance with the proposed architectural drawings (Exhibit 2, Tab 8).

THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2020

19Mr. Pileggi noted the following areas of consistency with the PPS policies in his presentation:

a) The Subject Property is within an existing settlement area, which should be the focus of growth and intensification;

b) There is a focus on more efficient use of land, with existing infrastructure and other public services, where planned transit exists or may be planned;

c) There should be a supply and range of housing options through intensification;

d) Allowance for a more compact form of intensification, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety;

e) There should be an existing level of adequate municipal sewage and water services as the preferred form; and,

f) Land use patterns and densities should be designed to reduce vehicular trips and be more supportive of present and future transit alternatives.

THE PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT 2024

20Through his oral testimony regarding to New PPS, Mr. Pileggi confirmed that with the formal implementation date of October 20, 2024, it was important to provide his opinion relating to the Application’s consistency with the New PPS.

21He supplemented this with the following thoughts relating to the New PPS noting that there was no impact on his original opinion and that the Application represented gentle and moderate intensification including references to the following:

• Policy 2.2.1 b) 2. all types of residential intensification, including the development and redevelopment of underutilized commercial and institutional sites (e.g., shopping malls and plazas) for residential use, development and introduction of new housing options within previously developed areas, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units in accordance with policy 2.3.1.3;
• Policy 2.3 Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions;
• Policy 2.3.1.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Within settlement areas, growth should be focused in, where applicable, strategic growth areas, including major transit station areas; and,
• Policy 2.3.2 which he stated generally provides flexibility for municipalities to consider expansions of settlement areas at any time.

A PLACE TO GROW - GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE

22Mr. Pileggi confirmed for the Tribunal that the GP is revoked as of the effective date of October 20, 2024, however, considering that it was in force at the time of this Hearing, it is appropriate to provide the requisite planning evidence with the proviso that the Application conforms to the GP.

23The Tribunal noted the detailed analysis relating to the GP in the witness statement (Exhibit 2, pgs. 7-8). The focus on optimizing the current urban land supply reflects an “intensification-first” approach to development and city-building. This approach prioritizes the efficient use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities, rather than the continuous expansion of urban areas.

24Sections 2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2, and 2.2.2, were directly referenced as the relevant applicable areas of the GP regarding the Settlement, which optimizes the existing use of land, buildings, and housing stock to prevent the excessive designation of land for future urban development.

THE REGION OF YORK OFFICIAL PLAN (2022) AND THE CITY OFFICIAL PLAN (2010)

25Mr. Pileggi noted that the Subject Property is located within the Urban Area designation, and that the ZBLA conforms with the RYOP policies and will eventually result in the redevelopment of underutilized land, in an appropriate fashion.

26In his witness statement (Exhibit 2, paras. 55-61), he expands on the relevant areas where the Settlement is in conformity, noting the planning horizon of 2051, seeking to achieve complete communities, and the objective of an “Urban System based on a hierarchy of intensification areas.”

27Regarding the COP, Mr. Pileggi noted that while there is currently a review underway as required by the Act, he outlined in his testimony and witness statement that the Neighbourhood designation allows for this kind of intensification. He referenced the importance of the NHE as required by the City, which is supportive of the Proposal, particularly as it related to the wooded area and O Zone designation.

28Additional policies relating to compatibility included but were not limited to a compact form of development, that is transit oriented, at an appropriate scale in a built-up area with existing infrastructure and services, protective of the natural environment.

29Mr. Pileggi expanded on this in greater detail through his witness statement (Exhibit 2, paras.75-86) reiterating that based on his planning analysis, the Settlement conforms to the COP, promoting a greater diversity in housing options on a relatively smaller scale, and in a harmonious fashion, representative of gentle intensification.

THE OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION PLAN

30Mr. Pileggi also testified that the Settlement conforms with the policies of the ORMCP, ensuring no adverse impacts on the natural features and their ecological functions. He emphasized that the COP is the main policy guideline for settlement areas.

31He further opined that the City has properly assessed the geotechnical analysis, the NHE, and water balancing analysis, without the need for a further hydro-geological study, and that there were no other outstanding concerns from the City or related agencies.

SECTION 2 OF THE PLANNING ACT

32Finally, although absent from the witness statement, when provided the opportunity for comment, Mr. Pileggi testified that the Settlement has regard for the following applicable requirements of s. 2 of the Act, with a specific focus on:

(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

(b) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

(c) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(d) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

(e) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(f) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(g) the promotion of built form that,

i. is well-designed, and

ii. encourages a sense of place.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENT

33Mr. Pileggi addressed the Participant concerns in the following manner:

a) Lot sizes were not dissimilar to neighbouring properties to the west and north of the Subject Property, and built form design will be complementary to the surrounding estate oriented dwellings, with similar heights, massing, and a varying degree of lot sizes;

b) Vehicular access is expected to occur along Coons Road and Cynthia Crescent. He noted that while he is not a traffic expert, he expected the two new lots would not have any adverse impact on surrounding traffic patterns. Additionally, he asserted that no traffic studies were required by the City;

c) The area is not within a flood or regulated area according to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, and Geotechnical report or Water balance studies were required as part of the Application, and that grading/drainage requirements would be addressed at the Building Permit stage. He also noted there were no Hydrogeological studies required by the City;

d) Concerns related to wooded protection are adequately addressed in the Settlement conditions, maintaining the existing area character, and that the NHE (Exhibit 2, Tab 10), complied with he ORMCP and other RYOP and COP guidelines as outlined in his witness statement;

e) There is emphasis on optimizing density, which in this case is subtle, and compact in form, and relates well to existing infrastructure, transportation alternatives, and does not detract from the area’s character;

f) Finally, he asserted that compatibility through a high quality of design and architecture will complement the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, enhancing and blending well with the community, without any adverse impact.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

34Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence from the Applicant, through the comprehensive witness statement and oral testimony of Mr. Pileggi, the Tribunal finds that the ZBLA, as presented, merits the Tribunal’s approval. The Proposal meets all of the necessary legislative requirements and is representative of good planning in the public interest.

35This was further reinforced by the PSR, ultimately endorsed by City Council, and the Tribunal observed that that while the ZBLA is approved, the next step in the process will require a severance application before the City’s COA. This process will follow the applicable requirements and further ‘tests’ under the Act, also allowing for further public input and any other analysis/requirements the City may wish to pursue related to that process.

ORDER

36THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order is hereby approved. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Richmond Hill to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Attachment 1

The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill

By-law 126-24

A By-law to Amend By-law 1275, as amended, of the former Township of King and By-law 146-76, as amended, of the Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill

Now Therefore the Ontario Land Tribunal adopts and approves as follows:

1. That By-law 1275, as amended, of the Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill is hereby further amended as follows:

a) That Paragraph 1(c) of By-law 146-76, as amended, of the Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill, shall not apply to the lands shown on Schedule “A” to By-law 126-24;

b) By rezoning a portion of the lands from “Residential Urban (RU) Zone” to “Open Space (O) Zone” under By-law 1275, as amended, as shown on Schedule “A” of this By-law 126-24;

c) That notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.7 of By-law 1275, as amended with respect to frontage, the minimum frontage of a building lot shall be 19.8 metres (65 feet) for the lands shown on Schedule “A” to By-law 126-24; and,

d) That notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.3 of By-law 1275, as amended, where a side lot line abuts a street, the minimum distance of the attached garage to that lot line shall be 5.8 metres (19.02 feet) for the lands shown on Schedule “A” to By-law 126-24.

2. All other provisions of By-law 1275, as amended, of the former Township of King, not inconsistent with the foregoing, shall continue to apply to the lands shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto.

3. The imperial measurements found in this by-law in brackets are provided for information purposes only and are intended to be an approximate conversion of the metric measurements. The metric or SI measurements shall be deemed to be the standards established by this by-law and, wherever there is a variance between the metric or SI measurements and the imperial measurements, the metric or SI measurement shall apply.

4. Schedule “A” attached to By-law 126-24 is declared to form a part of this By-law.

The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill

Explanatory Note to By-law 126-24

By-law 126-24 affects the lands described as Lot 3, Registered Plan M-36, municipally known as 1 Cynthia Crescent.

By-law 1275, as amended, presently zones the subject lands "Residential Urban (RU) Zone". Section 1(c) of By-law 146-76 which amended By-law 1275, as amended, requires the minimum lot frontage and lot area established through the original registered Plan of Subdivision to be maintained.

By-law 126-24 exempts the subject lands shown on Schedule "A" to this By-law from the above-noted requirement in order to permit future severances on the subject property to create two additional residential lots. By-law 126-24 also rezones a portion of the subject lands to “Open Space (O) Zone” under By-law 1275, as amended, to prevent the construction of buildings or structures in order to protect a woodlot on the subject lands. Furthermore, where a side lot line abuts a street, By-law 126-24 requires that the minimum distance of the attached garage to that lot line shall be 5.8 metres (19.02 feet) to ensure adequate space for vehicle parking